In most people’s minds, patents are linked to a single inventor or company name. One person applies, the same person or the associated entity owns, and the story ends there. Reality, however, is more complicated.
Modern-day innovation rarely happens in isolation; it requires collaboration. A research paper may have six authors from three different labs. A startup might co-develop technology with a university partner. Even within companies, R&D often spans multiple departments. Naturally, the question arises: what happens when more than one party owns a patent?
Can a patent really be co-owned among multiple entities? And if yes, how do those co-owners divide rights, responsibilities, and perhaps most importantly, profits?
What the law says in India
The Indian Patents Act, 1970, has clear points. The most relevant are Sections 48, 50, 51, and 68-70.
Section 48: sets out the basic rights of a patentee, the right to prevent others from making, using, or selling the invention without permission.
Section 50: deals specifically with co-ownership.
Each co-owner has an equal undivided share by default.
Each co-owner may exploit the invention commercially without needing permission from the others.
BUT no single co-owner can grant a license or assign their share without the consent of all.
Section 51: gives the Controller of Patents the power to issue directions if co-owners are deadlocked.
Sections 68–70: require assignments and licenses to be in writing and registered with the Patent Office to be legally effective.
At first glance, this seems simple. But once you think through real-world scenarios, the nuances get messy.
Acting alone vs. acting together: where the line is drawn
Here’s where many innovators get confused. The law draws a sharp distinction between what you can do on your own and what requires consensus.
Exploiting the invention (make, use, sell) → Each co-owner can do this independently, without accounting to the others. If I’m a co-owner, I can sell my patented device and keep all the profits, unless we’ve signed a different agreement.
Licensing or assigning → This needs unanimous consent. I cannot grant another company rights to manufacture under “our” patent without every co-owner’s approval.
Suing for infringement → Indian courts have allowed a single co-owner to sue, as in the M.C. Jayasingh v. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd. case (Madras HC, 2014). But this comes with risks: if the defendant raises a counterclaim challenging validity, the judgment affects all co-owners, even those not party to the case.
This split, exploit freely, but license/assign only together, is unusual and sometimes counterintuitive. It creates tension between academic researchers (who might want to publish and license) and commercial players (who might want unilateral freedom).
Where problems arise: profits and fairness
Imagine three inventors co-own a patent. One begins manufacturing and selling products, earning lakhs in revenue. Under Section 50(2), they don’t need to share profits with others. The other two get nothing unless they negotiate a private agreement.
This default rule often feels unfair. It encourages co-owners to rush into unilateral exploitation, leaving others behind. For this reason, experienced institutions and startups almost always draft co-ownership agreements that override the default law.
A good agreement should cover:
Profit-sharing: royalty splits, milestone payments, or performance-based tiers.
Decision-making: majority vs. unanimous votes on licensing.
Exit mechanisms: what happens if one co-owner wants out?
Audit rights: the ability to verify accounts if profits are shared.
Without such an agreement, disputes are almost inevitable.
Deadlocks and the Controller’s Role
What if the co-owners can’t agree... say, one wants to license to a multinational, and the other flatly refuses?
That’s where Section 51 comes in. Either party can approach the Controller of Patents, who has the power to issue directions. The Controller might, for example, allow the license to go ahead if it’s in the “interest of all co-owners.”
In practice, though, few innovators actually go this route. Approaching the Controller is slow, uncertain, and can sour business relationships. This is why proactive contracts (with deadlock-breaking clauses like buy-sell provisions, mediation, or arbitration triggers) are a better solution.
The paperwork trap: why registration matters
Here’s a pitfall I’ve seen many fall into. Section 68 requires all assignments and licenses to be in writing. But that’s not enough, you also need to register them with the Patent Office under Section 69.
The Delhi High Court’s decision in the Sergi Transformer case made this clear: if a license isn’t registered, courts may withhold relief until it is. In short, no registration, no enforcement.
So the rule of thumb is simple:
Always sign formal agreements.
Always file them with the Controller.
Don’t assume a handshake deal or even a signed document will hold up in court if unregistered.
Universities, startups, and the inventorship trap
Another common issue is confusing inventorship with ownership.
Inventors are the people who contributed intellectually to the inventive step.
Owners are whoever the rights are assigned to, often the university, company, or funding body. It can be an inventor(s) too.
For students and professors, this distinction matters a lot. University IP policies usually require inventors to assign patents to the institution. Startups need to ensure employees and collaborators sign assignment deeds so there’s no ambiguity later.
Failure to get inventorship and ownership aligned can derail licensing deals or fundraising rounds. Investors always look closely at IP ownership before writing a cheque.
Case law highlights
Two Indian cases stand out:
M.C. Jayasingh v. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd. (Madras HC, 2014)
The court held that one co-owner could sue for infringement without the others joining. This is a significant departure from U.S. law, where all co-owners usually must sue together. It gives Indian co-owners more flexibility but also more responsibility.Sergi Transformer Explosion v. CTR Manufacturing (Delhi HC, 2014)
The court emphasised that unregistered license agreements cannot be relied on in court. Parties must register their interests promptly to avoid delays in enforcement.
These cases show how co-ownership is not just theory, it has real commercial consequences.
Practical advice for innovators
If you’re an innovator, student, or entrepreneur facing co-ownership, here are steps worth considering:
Don’t rely on default law. Draft a co-ownership agreement early, covering profits, licensing, and dispute resolution.
Keep inventorship accurate. Correct errors under Sections 20/28 if needed, don’t let authorship disputes derail ownership.
Register everything. Licenses, assignments, even internal transfers, file them promptly.
Think about exits. What happens if one co-owner sells their share or refuses to cooperate? Put buy-out or exit clauses in writing.
Plan for enforcement. Decide in advance who pays for lawsuits, how recoveries are shared, and whether litigation finance is an option.
FAQs
1. Can a patent legally be owned by more than one person or entity in India?
Yes. Indian law clearly permits joint ownership of patents. When two or more persons are recorded as patentees, they are treated as co-owners with equal and undivided shares unless there is an agreement stating otherwise.
Co-ownership is common in collaborative research, joint ventures, university–industry projects, and multi-founder startups. The law recognises that innovation is often collective, but it also imposes specific rules on how those co-owners may exercise their rights.
2. If we are co-owners, do we each own a specific percentage of the patent?
By default, no. Section 50 of the Patents Act states that co-owners hold equal and undivided shares, unless they have contractually agreed to something different.
This means each co-owner is treated as having an equal interest in the entire patent, not in a defined physical or territorial portion of it. If you want unequal shares or clearly defined percentages, that must be documented in a written agreement.
3. Can one co-owner commercially use the patent without asking the others?
Yes. Under Section 50(2), each co-owner is entitled to make, use, exercise, and sell the patented invention for their own benefit without needing consent from the other co-owners and without accounting for profits, unless there is a contrary agreement.
This often surprises people. A co-owner can independently exploit the invention and retain the revenue. If fairness or revenue sharing is important, it must be addressed in a co-ownership agreement.
4. Can one co-owner license the patent to a third party on their own?
No. This is where the law draws a firm boundary. While independent exploitation is allowed, granting a license or assigning a share in the patent requires the consent of all co-owners.
In practice, this means that commercial licensing deals can stall if even one co-owner disagrees. Without unanimity, a valid license cannot be granted.
5. What happens if co-owners disagree about licensing or commercialization?
If co-owners reach a deadlock, Section 51 allows them to approach the Controller of Patents for directions. The Controller has the authority to issue orders in the interest of justice and fairness between co-owners.
However, this is not a preferred commercial solution. Controller proceedings can be time-consuming and may strain professional relationships. Most institutions therefore rely on detailed contractual mechanisms, such as mediation clauses, buy-out provisions, or predefined voting structures, to manage disagreements.
6. Can a single co-owner file an infringement suit?
Indian courts have permitted a co-owner to initiate infringement proceedings independently. In the M.C. Jayasingh v. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd. decision (Madras High Court, 2014), the court held that one co-owner could sue without joining the others.
However, this flexibility comes with risk. If the defendant raises a counterclaim challenging validity, any adverse ruling affects the entire patent, including the interests of absent co-owners. Litigation decisions therefore require careful coordination.
7. What if we sign a license agreement but do not register it with the Patent Office?
Sections 68 and 69 require assignments and licenses to be in writing and registered with the Controller to be legally effective against third parties.
The Delhi High Court in Sergi Transformer Explosion v. CTR Manufacturing emphasized that unregistered licenses may not be enforceable in court. Failure to register can delay or weaken enforcement efforts. Proper documentation and timely registration are essential.
8. Is inventorship the same as co-ownership?
No. Inventorship refers to the individuals who intellectually contributed to the inventive concept. Ownership refers to who holds the legal rights after assignment or contractual transfer.
For example, three researchers may be joint inventors, but the patent may be owned entirely by their employer if they have signed assignment agreements. Confusing inventorship with ownership often creates disputes during commercialization or investment rounds.
9. Why is co-ownership often described as risky?
Because the statutory default rules may not reflect the parties’ expectations. One co-owner may independently profit from the invention, while others receive nothing. Conversely, a single dissenting co-owner can block licensing or assignment deals.
Without a tailored agreement covering revenue sharing, decision-making processes, dispute resolution, and exit options, co-ownership can generate more conflict than collaboration.
10. What should co-owners do at the outset to avoid future disputes?
They should execute a detailed co-ownership agreement at the earliest stage. Such an agreement should address profit distribution, licensing authority, enforcement costs, litigation control, exit mechanisms, and dispute resolution procedures.
In addition, all assignments and licenses should be properly documented and registered. Proactive legal structuring is far more effective than attempting to resolve conflicts after commercial value has emerged.
11. Is co-ownership always a disadvantage?
Not necessarily. When structured properly, co-ownership can pool expertise, share risk, and accelerate commercialization. It is particularly useful in university–industry collaborations or joint ventures where complementary capabilities are involved.
However, its success depends less on statutory defaults and more on careful contractual planning. A patent’s commercial strength is not only defined by its claims, but also by the clarity and coordination among those who own it.
Closing thoughts
Yes, patents can be co-owned in India. But without clear agreements, co-ownership can be more of a curse than a blessing. The law gives each co-owner wide latitude to act individually, but restricts licensing and assignment, creating frequent conflicts.
The safest approach is to treat co-ownership like a business partnership: document everything, register formally, and plan ahead for profits, responsibilities, and disputes.
Because at the end of the day, the value of a patent doesn’t just lie in the invention, it lies in how well its owners can work together to turn it into real-world impact.
